This report on the Myers-Briggs
Type Indicator (MBTI), a psychological assessment instrument based on Jungian
personality type theory, begins with a general introduction to the instrument,
including a brief overview of the underlying theory. It discusses
developmental issues; the structural issues of standardization, reliability,
and validity; and some of its practical applications in counseling and
psychotherapy, career management and counseling, management and leadership,
teams, education, multicultural use, and health, stress, and coping. A
personal critique concludes the paper.

Myers-Briggs Type
Indicator: A Research Report

The Myers-Briggs
Type Indicator, developed to make C. G. Jung's
personality type theory understandable and useful in people's lives (Myers
& McCaulley, 1985; Myers, McCaulley,
Quenk, & Hammer, 1998/2003), has become the most
trusted and widely-used psychometric instruments for assessing personality
characteristics in non-psychiatric populations. After fifty-plus years of
use, more than two million assessments are administered annually, not only in
the U.S., but internationally, as well (Consulting Psychologists Press, paras. 2 & 3, “MBTI,” n.d.).
Applications have been made across a broad spectrum of human experience,
including in areas such as counseling and psychotherapy; education, learning
styles, and cognitive styles; career counseling; management and leadership in
business organizations and the military services; and health-related issues.

Based from its
inception upon empirical research, it has spawned its own service and research
laboratory, the Center for Applications of Psychological Type (CAPT), and an
independent, self-supporting research journal, the Journal of Psychological
Type. At the writing of MBTI Applications (1996), CAPT's
library holdings include over 1100 dissertations; 2000 articles and papers; 800
books; type associations newsletters from North America, Europe, Asia,
Australia, and New Zealand; hundreds of conference proceedings; and thousands
of audio and video tapes (Center for Applications of Psychological Type, para. 1, “MBTI Library,” n.d.).

Interestingly, the
MBTI has been largely ignored by the professional community, even among
proponents of constructing and evaluating psychometric instruments according to
personality theory—though it remains one of the few
attempts to thus implement the principles of construct development (Wiggins,
1989).

The MBTI has a
unique and interesting history. Unlike most personality inventories, it
was initially designed to facilitate research interests, and only later adapted
for general use. Isabel Briggs Myers devoted her entire life to the
development of an instrument that would be valuable to the largest possible
number of people. Myers' passionate interest in personality type was sparked
and cultivated by her mother's (Katharine Briggs) study of personality type and
discovery that Jung's typology fit well with her own observations. The
devastating effects of World War II aroused a desire in Myers to do something
to promote understanding and harmony among people to help avoid destructive
conflicts.
In 1942, Briggs and Myers, with no formal training in psychology or statistics,
and no academic sponsorship or research grants, began
themselves to develop items to tap attitudes, perceptions, feelings, and
behaviors according to their understanding of personality type. Myers
continued her work with unflagging energy and devotion, gathering a vast amount
of data, submitting the items to empirical testing, and revising test forms
accordingly. The first version of the MBTI Manual was published in 1962
(Myers, 1962), and revised in 1985 (Myers & McCaulley,
1985). Shortly before her death at 83 years of age, Myers completed Gifts
Differing (Myers with Myers, 1980/1990), a book on personality differences for
the general public. In 1998, concurrent with a major revision of the
Inventory, the third edition of the Manual was published (Myers, McCauley, Quenk, & Hammer, 1998/2003). Myers' desire for
the MBTI is summed up by her comment to her associate, Dr. Mary McCaulley (n.d.), "You psychologists focus on what's wrong with
people. The MBTI is about what's right with people. We must not
hurt the MBTI by making it look like your other clinical instruments." (McCaulley, n.d.
“Isabel Myers”).

General Introduction
to the Instrument:

Brief Overview of
Underlying Theory

The MBTI is a
psychometric instrument designed to sort people into groups of personality
types. Jungian theory (Jung, 1971) posits that variation in human
behavior is not due to chance, but to basic and observable differences in the
ways people prefer to use their minds to gather and process information.
Perception is the means by which one becomes aware of people, things, events,
and concepts; judgment is the means of coming to conclusions about how to
handle the information thus gathered. Sensing perception uses the
physical senses of seeing, hearing, tasting, touching, and smelling, while iNtuition perceives through an intangible, usually
unconscious, sometimes called "sixth" sense. These are measured
on the MBTI's SN index. Thinking judgment
involves making decisions objectively and impersonally, based on laws,
principles, and factual information. Feeling judgement
makes decisions subjectively and personally, based on relationships and values—one's own and those of others. Judgment
preferences are reflected in the TF index (Myers, 1980; Myers & McCaulley, 1985; Myers, McCaulley,
Quenk, & Hammer, 1998/2003; Ring, 1998).

Two other indices
deal with orientation and attitude. The EI index indicates Extraversion,
an orientation and energy flow toward the outer world focusing on people and
things, and Introversion, an orientation and energy flow toward the inner world
of concepts and ideas. Myers added a JP index to Jung's original
classifications to describe the process used primarily in dealing with the
outer world, the extraverted part of life. A J report indicates a
preference for using a judgment process (Thinking or Feeling),
while a P report indicates a preference for using a process of perception
(either Sensing or iNtuition). All four indices
are dichotomous, as people tend to develop one preference on the scale at the
expense of the other (Myers, 1980; Myers & McCaulley,
1985; Myers, McCaulley, Quenk,
& Hammer, 1998/2003; Ring, 1998).

An MBTI result
consists of a four-letter code, such as ESTJ (Extraverted Sensing Thinking
Judging), to indicate the personality type of the individual. All
possible combinations yield sixteen personality types, each with a distinct
descriptive profile of characteristic behavior patterns caused by the dynamic
interaction of the individual processes. Understanding these interactions
is essential to understanding the whole type, which is always greater and more
complex than the simple sum of its parts. We all use all of the type
preferences and processes at different times, and each is appropriate in
certain situations. However, one's inborn preferences are the most
important determinant of which are most used and will, therefore, be best developed.
This gives rise to infinite variation, even among people of the same type
(Myers, 1980; Myers & McCaulley, 1985; Ring,
1998).

The MBTI manuals
(Myers & McCaulley, 1985; Myers, McCaulley, Quenk, & Hammer,
1998/2003) give an extensive overview of the underlying theory and type
dynamics according to Myers’ life-long observations, integrated with her
understanding of Jungian typology. In addition, her book (Myers, 1980),
written for the general populace, discusses type development. Optimum use
of the instrument requires a thorough understanding of these by the person who
will interpret the results.

Structure and
Administration

The MBTI is a
self-report instrument with dichotomous scales intended to sort people into
type categories, rather than to measure strengths of individual traits or
degrees of type development—an important
differentiation from instruments based on trait theories. The items,
though written in a forced-choice format, are less aversive
than other forced-choice instruments because each item deals with only one
polarity, and the responses reflect opposing, rather than competing, choices (DeVito, 1985). All choices are valid.

Written at an
seventh grade reading level, it is appropriate for adults and high school
students, though the manuals (Myers & McCaulley,
1985; Myers, McCaulley, Quenk,
& Hammer, 1998/2003) advise caution in interpreting results with middle and
junior high school students. The MBTI may be administered individually or
in groups, in a paper-and-pencil format, or online. For paper-and-pencil
administration, all necessary instructions are found on the cover of the
question booklets, and answers are marked on response sheets. For valid
results, respondents should be voluntary and cooperative, and should adopt the
attitude of their most natural, smooth, and effortless functioning, in which
they are not working “against the grain”—a “shoes-off
self”, as expressed in the manual (Myers & McCaulley).
There is no time limit given. Hand scoring is done using stencils, and
computer scoring services with interpretive reports are available from the
publisher.

The MBTI is
published by Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc. (CPP). It is available
in Form M (Step I), the standard 93 item version that identifies the basic four
letter type, and Form Q (Step II), a 144 item
instrument that, in addition to the four letter type, gives results for 20
facets of that type to explore variation in the type. Form M is available
in self-scorable and hand-scorable
formats, as well as a variety of options for computer scoring and
reports. Form Q must be scored by computer, which generates a detailed
report.

Developmental Issues

The Third Edition of
the Manual (Myers, McCaulley, Quenk,
& Hammer, 1998/2003), speaks of the development of
the MBTI as a “tradition of change” (p. 9), the changes always being grounded
in the traditions of the original intent and method of construction. The
MBTI manuals (Myers & McCaulley, 1985; Myers et
al. 1998/2003) offer a thorough discussion of the Indicator’s
development, which occurred in a series of stages with constant research and
continued refinement of validation and interpretation capabilities, beginning
in 1942, and culminating in the publication of Form M, known as Step I, in
1998. Form Q (Step II), based on Form M, but with expanded subscales, was
developed concurrently with Form M. The psychometric properties and
interpretation of Form Q are treated in its own manuals, and will not be
discussed here.

Development of the
MBTI presented unique challenges not found in other psychological measures,
because the intent was not to measure traits people possess, where too much or
too little may carry a negative connotation, but to sort them into equally
valuable groups to which they theoretically already belong, as posited by Jung’s theory of psychological types (Myers, McCaulley, Quenk, & Hammer,
1998/2003). The overriding issue for the MBTI is basic to the construct
validation approach to test development. When “no criterion or
universe of content is accepted as entirely adequate to define the quality to
be measured” (Cronbach & Meehl,
as quoted in Kaplan & Saccuzzo, 1982, p. 144),
the definition of the construct and development of the instrument must occur simultaneously,
requiring collection of a large amount of data pertaining to both convergent
and discriminant evidence of validity, with repeated
revisions and adjustments (Kaplan & Saccuzzo).

Cronbach
& Meehl (as cited in Wiggins, 1989, p. 537) point
out a difficulty unique to such an approach: “Unless substantially the same nomological net is accepted by the several users of the
construct, public validation is impossible…. A consumer of the test who
rejects the author’s theory cannot accept the author’s validation.” Thus the great challenge in the
development of the MBTI, designed to ascertain as correctly as possible the
true personality preferences of an individual, is that its validity is based
upon the validity of the very constructs of type it seeks to identify.
For the one who does not accept the basic assumptions inherent in the theory,
no amount of data, however vast, will be sufficient support for the instrument’s validity (Kaplan & Saccuzzo;
Wiggins, 1989).

The assumptions of
the MBTI are not typical of most psychometric measures. One assumption is
that “true preferences” really exist. However, accurate identification of
such preferences by self-report depends upon good type
development and accurate self-knowledge. This brings up questions of type
developmental progression and maturity, and whether preferences actually are
inborn and consistent over time. Consideration was given to evaluation of
the samplings to determine which items became less effective as the sample ages
decreased (Myers & McCaulley, 1985; Myers, McCaulley, Quenk, & Hammer,
1998/2003).

Another assumption
is that, by self-report, persons can indicate, directly or indirectly,
preferences that interact to form type. Assuming also that preferences
themselves are often unconsciously formulated, the meaning of questions was
less important in item selection than indication of the preference that
influenced the response. Thus, seemingly trivial questions about simple
surface behaviors were designed to tap underlying preferences that might not be
elicited directly. Attempts were made to make the alternatives of each item
equally appealing to the appropriate types, resulting in responses that may be
opposed psychologically, but not logically (Myers & McCaulley,
1985; Myers, McCaulley, Quenk,
& Hammer, 1998/2003).

Yet another
assumption is that the type preferences are dichotomous, rather than extremes
on a continuum. This is the rationale for a forced-choice format.
Also inherent in type theory is that each dichotomy is a choice between
qualities of equal value, with no intrinsic good or bad, right or wrong. Thus
the respondent is not made to feel defensive about his own personhood, helping
to discourage acquiescent and social desirability response sets. Items
are specific only to the targeted preferences, and the alternatives are always
presented as forced-choices, rather than separately, to avoid selection of both
polarities with no way of determining which is preferred
(Myers & McCaulley, 1985).

Perhaps the most
major issue of the assumption of dichotomy pertains to whether the two poles of
each preference are true dichotomies, or are, in fact, simply extremes of a
trait continuum. In part, the difficulty lies in the fact that most
statistical methods are applied to continuous scales. Discontinuous scales
would require the use of more complicated and extensive non-parametric measures
(DeVito, 1985). Although MBTI scores can be
expressed as continuous scales, and these have been used extensively in
parametric statistical studies, considerable effort has been made to gather
evidence to support the assumption of dichotomy.

Another difficulty
relates to precision in the center of the scale, so as to be more likely to
achieve accurate classification according to the respondent’s
true preference. Weighting of scores based on a prediction ratio that
rates discriminatory ability of each alternative, popularity of response, and
gender differences, was used prior to Form M to balance the sides for greater
accuracy in the mid-scale range. The MBTI was restandardized
in 1977 to correct for a cultural trend toward an increased proportion of
feeling types that had skewed scoring of the TF index (Myers & McCaulley, 1985). In the 1978 revision, resulting in
Form M, these issues were addressed by using the newer statistical analysis
methods and techniques of item response theory (IRT), and differential item
functioning (DIF).

Structural Issues

Manual

The 309 page revised
edition of the manual for the MBTI (Myers & McCaulley,
1985) is, in the words of one reviewer (DeVito, 1985,
p. 1030), “extremely clear and complete”. In addition to the usual
information about administration and scoring, and extensive statistical data
pertaining to the standardization sample, reliability, and validity of Form G,
it contains a full exposition of the Indicator, the underlying theory, and a
history of its development. A considerable amount of information to guide
interpretation and verification of results and use of type in counseling,
career counseling, and education is also included.

In its 420 pages,
the third edition of the manual (Myers, 1980; Myers & McCaulley,
1985; Ring, 1998), builds upon that information with statistical data and
rationale for the revision and methods of construction of Form M. Updated
information about further research and practical applications are
included. According to a critical review by John Fleenor
(2001, p. 817), this manual is one of the strengths of the MBTI.

Standardization
Sample

From 1942 to 1944,
the first potential MBTI items were developed and tested on an initial
“criterion group” of about twenty friends and relatives of whose types Briggs
and Myers were quite certain from their previous years of study and
observation. As development progressed, items were tested on increasingly
larger samples, mostly adults who could be expected to have more-developed
types, and therefore clearer preferences. Around 1956, a series of
younger-age samplings were introduced and evaluated to determine the efficiency
of items as age decreased. In 1957, internal consistency analysis of Form
D used a sample of 2,573 Pennsylvania
eleventh and twelfth grade males in college preparatory courses, and a similar
sample of girls. Between 1975 and 1977, a new standardization of items
was done in preparation of publication of Form F to verify for cultural changes
and investigate the age at which school children could validly be tested.
Samples of 1,114 males and 1,111 females, grades four through twelve in three
public schools in Bethesda, Maryland
and four private schools in the Philadelphia
suburbs were used. Rescoring of a sample of 3,362 University
of Florida freshmen tested in 1972
and 1973 was also done.

Myers
established an MBTI data bank generated from the MBTI scoring program at the
Center for Applications of Psychological Type, Inc. (CAPT) in Gainesville,
Florida. At the publication of the
second version of the manual (Myers & McCaulley,
1985), it contained more than 250,000 MBTI records generated from the scoring
program at CAPT. These data form the basis of many of the analyses
reported throughout the manual (Myers & McCaulley).

Because most of the
earlier research was done using samples of high school and college students,
for the 1998 revision, researchers collected a national random sample of people
over 18, selected by random-digit dialing of telephones, and using specific
population demographic targets based on the latest U.S.
census. Of the more than 8,000 people contacted, about 4,000 who matched
the census targets received the MBTI research form and an extensive demographic
questionnaire. About 80% of these responded, yielding a sample of 3,200
adults. This standardization sample was used for item analysis and item
weighting as a foundation for scoring. However, it was not a true
representative sample, because White women tended to be overrepresented, and
Black men underrepresented. For analyses requiring a representative
sample, two methods were used to compile a national representative sample of
3009 persons (Myers, 1980; Myers & McCaulley,
1985; Myers, McCaulley, Quenk,
& Hammer, 1998/2003; Ring, 1998).

Reliability

Early reviews (Mendelsohn, 1965; Sundberg,
1965), based on the first version of the MBTI manual (Myers, 1962), give
internal consistency reliabilities for the four scales ranging from .75-.85
with a low coefficient of .44 for the TF index, and test-retest correlations of
about .70 for three of the scales and .48 for the TF. They found these
statistics comparable to the leading personality inventories at the time, but
stated the need for more reliability studies.

The 1985 manual
(Myers & McCaulley) provides an extensive
discussion of reliability with seven tables of data. Internal consistency
was measured by the split-half method, with reliabilities again consistent with
those of other personality inventories with longer scales. Estimates
varied according to respondent characteristics, with generally lower, though
still adequate, reliabilities in younger respondents and other populations of
people regarded to be functioning at lower levels of achievement or type
development. Alpha and Pearson’s r coefficiencies for internal consistency were comparable.

Phi coefficients,
statistics for categorical data, corrected using the Spearman-Brown prophecy
formula, could be expected to underestimate reliabilities of type categories
because the MBTI data are not true categories, but rather a result of
scoring. Tetrachoric r correlations, also
corrected with Spearman-Brown, are not affected by extreme scores, thus giving
greater measurement precision in the mid-scale range, which, containing the
cutting point, is critical for accuracy in type
classification. However, the tetrachoric r
assumes a normal distribution. Since MBTI data are not normally
distributed, the tetrachoric r could be expected to
overestimate reliabilities. Comparing results of the two methods showed
differences of the same order of magnitude, which was interpreted to be
evidence in support of adequate reliability in the mid-scale range of continuous
scores, and therefore, for reliability of the type categories (Myers & McCaulley, 1985).

Test-retest
reliabilities of type categories, derived from product-moment correlations of
samples from seventh grade to medical school, show consistency over time.
Reported changes are likely to occur in only a single preference, and most
often in scales where the preference was low in the first testing (Myers & McCaulley, 1985).

Harvey
(1996) evaluated and summarized results of research on the MBTI’s
reliability and validity done in the ten years following the 1985 publication
of the second version of the manual. Results of meta-analytic studies,
using generally accepted standards applied to instruments with continuous
scores, show the reliabilities of the MBTI continuous scores to be quite good—average overall reliabilities of .84 and .86 for
internal consistency measures, and .76 for temporal stability. These
compare quite well with reliabilities of “even
the most well-established and respected trait-based instruments” (p.24).
Respondents with strong preference clarity are classified the same across the
four scales 92% of the time on retesting; those of medium preference clarity
are classified identically 81% of the time. The issues of type stability
for respondents with low preference clarity,and need
for increased measurement precision at the type cutoffs remain among the most
pressing problems related to the MBTI’s
reliability. Harvey discussed
the advantages of item response theory (IRT) over classic test theory (CTT) in
evaluating the psychometric precision of the MBTI, and pointed to then-recent
IRT-based research as having the potential for resolving these issues.

Psychometric
measures of Form M demonstrate considerable improvement in reliability over
Form G. On all four MBTI scales, the internal consistency is quite high
as measured by logical split-half, consecutive item split-half, or coefficient
alpha. There is some variation of reliabilities across groups, with those
having a better command of perception and judging, who are more likely to
understand the test items and better able to self-report more accurately,
performing more consistency. Selection of test items using IRT research
has equalized the items for gender, making weighting of scores unnecessary in
Form M. Test-retest reliabilities of Form M are consistent over time,
with agreement rates on re-test much higher than would occur by chance, and greater than on Form G. In combined
samples numbering 424, the average percentage of agreement on retest after four
weeks in all four preferences was 65, and on three preferences, 28, as compared
to a 6.25% level of agreement by chance. Again, the reported changes are
most likely to occur in preferences of low clarity in the first test. In
his review of the MBTI Form M, Fleenor (2001) points
out that basing reliability measures on continuous preference scores is
contrary to the theory underlying the MBTI that postulates types are
dichotomous, not traits on a continuum. The use of IRT scoring methods
minimizes that problem by giving greater discrimination around the midpoint,
resulting in improved measurement precision of all scales on Form M.
(Myers, McCaulley, Quenk,
& Hammer, 1998/2003).

Validity

Because the MBTI is
based on theory, its validity must be evaluated according to how well it
demonstrates relationships and predicts outcomes posited by that theory.
While the Mental Measurement Yearbooks reviewers of early MBTI forms (Coan, 1978; Mendelsohn, 1965;
Siegel, 1965; and, Sundberg, 1965) expressed
considerable reservations about its validity, one even stating that it did “not
represent a successful operationalization of Jungian
concepts” (Mendelsohn, p. 322), all were positive
about its potential value in personality assessment. The second version
of the MBTI manual presents a lengthy discussion of validity with considerable
data. Because item selection was based only on empirical evidence of
type-sorting ability, the convergent, divergent, and predictive validities are
the focus of consideration.

Research evidence
was gathered by a variety of approaches. Type tables, which might on the
surface seem to be merely descriptive, actually provide evidence for construct
validity by showing a significantly higher percentage of certain types in a
specific area of interest (such as occupational preference) than could be
expected by chance. A 29 page table in the manual gives data of
convergent validity research in many samples comparing MBTI constructs to
similar constructs tapped by various other personality instruments.

Citing the
limitations of such correlations due to consideration only of the four
preferences without the dynamics of whole type, and the problems of confounding
direction and strength of the preferences, Myers & McCaulley
(1985) note that the correlations could be expected to underestimate the
magnitude of the relationships. Correlations with the Jungian Type Survey
(JTS), the only other instrument that purports to identify Jungian types,
indicates a significant commonality of constructs being tapped by both, though
with more consistency for the EI and SN scales than the TF (E = .68, I = .66, S
= .54, N = .47, T = .33, and F = .23. The JP index, not an original
Jungian concept, is specific to the MBTI.) The 1985 Manual also reports
evidence supportive of construct validity both from comparisons of MBTI results
with self-estimates of type based on brief type descriptions, and studies of
behavioral observation of differences according to reported type. Other
studies relating specific characteristics to
type, such as creativity and originality, various aspects of memory,
orientation to time, fantasy and imagery, anxiety and conformity, optimism and
pessimism, and preference for privacy are reported in the 1985 Manual.

Harvey
(1996) summarized the expansion of validation research and increasing empirical
evidence in support of the MBTI’s convergent,
divergent, and predictive qualities in the decade following publication of the
second version of the manual. Of particular interest was the growing
number of exploratory and confirmatory factor analytic studies.
Several large sample exploratory factor analyses have produced four-factor
structures that are almost identical to the pattern of loadings hypothesized
according to the preference scoring system. Other studies, using
the confirmatory approach, have compared the MBTI four-factor model with
competing models. In one case, two five-factor models proposed by
trait-based advocates were effectively ruled out, while validity of the
four-factor structure was very strongly supported. For those same models,
convergent validity has been found to exist between four of the factors of each
and the MBTI preference scales.

Fleenor
(2001), in his critical review of Form M, noted that many validity studies
reported in the 1998 Manual used continuous scores, which is contrary to the
underlying theory. However, evidence for dichotomies has been actively
sought, and research is reported in the 1998 Manual that indicates a division point
where there is a change in slope or level, at the bottom of a U-shaped
distribution plot, or discontinuity at the midpoint. Further evidence of
dichotomy is found by topographic brain mapping. Two such studies have
suggested that Extraverts demonstrate significantly less cortical arousal and
less activity in the anterior temporal lobes than do Introverts.
These findings may be related to Introverts seeking to reduce stimulation from
the environment, and Extraverts being geared to respond and seek activity and
excitement. This further evidence of dichotomous typology also supports Jung’s view of personality as biologically based (Myers, McCaulley, Quenk, & Hammer, 1998/2003).

Since the Indicator
is intended to help to identify whole type, its validity is dependent upon
evidence that the whole is more than just the addition of the four
dichotomies. That is, the characteristics and behaviors that demonstrate
the dynamics of combinations of preferences should not be explainable by
knowledge of the preferences alone. Problems arise when applying methods
developed and used for trait instruments to the study of typological
theories. Validity research in preference interactions requires multiple
and multifaceted dependent variables, measurement precision, and ANOVA or
similar complex analysis. Finding sample sizes with sufficient numbers of
the less frequent types can be difficult. The 1998 Manual discusses these
problems at length, and reports research that supports the validity of the
instrument to identify whole type and dynamic interactions between various
preferences consistent with the theoretical hypotheses. The Manual also
reports research showing that each type can be uniquely described with sets of
descriptors, and that type-based predictions are more accurate than trait-based
predictions.

Fleenor
(2001) concludes that Form M has significantly improved the MBTI, citing
improved scoring procedures with the use of IRT, and elimination of gender
differences in some scales through the use of DIF analysis. In his
opinion, the MBTI “has some value as a tool for increasing self-insight, and
for helping people to understand individual differences in personality type (p.
818),” but cautions that more analyses appropriate to
categorical data are needed before it can be recommended without
reservation. Mastrangelo (2001), in his review
of Form M, states that “The MBTI should not be ignored by scientists or
embraced by practitioners to the extent that it currently is (p. 819).”
He cautions—as does the Manual—that
it should not be used to make decisions about a person (such as hiring), and
recommends further research addressing consistency and interpretation of scores
that show a weak preference on a specific scale.

Utility and
Applications

Reliability and
validity are at the heart of the MBTI, for it promises great usefulness if it
is, indeed, a dependable instrument. Because personality type pertains to
every human interaction, applications for the MBTI are limited only by
understanding of the underlying theory and the desire to implement it in
practical situations.

Counseling and
Psychotherapy

According to Quenk and Quenk (1986) in a
review of research on the use of the MBTI in counseling and psychotherapy, a
national survey of counselors in community-based treatment settings rated the
MBTI as the fourth most frequently used standardized test, after the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), Strong Interest
Inventory, and Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS-R). Clinical
reports and case studies, they say, give evidence regarding the benefits of
type knowledge in counseling and psychotherapy. In addition to lengthy
instructions for interpreting the MBTI to clients—actually
a part of counseling—the manuals (Myers & McCaulley, 1985; Myers, McCaulley,
Quenk, & Hammer, 1998/2003) devote an entire
chapter to its use in individual, marriage, and family counseling. Myers
et al. give many insightful principles for understanding the client’s perspective, needs, and motivation according to
type, applying therapist self-knowledge of type therapeutically in the
counseling process, modeling and teaching clients to understand personality
differences in others and how they interact with their own types, specific
counseling issues to consider with each type, and using type theory for
effective communication. Quenk and Quenk consider preferred models of counseling and
psychotherapy, the relationship of type to supervision in counseling programs,
type characteristics of users of psychological services, practitioner type and
the therapeutic process, type and therapy outcomes, type and couples, and type
and substance abuse.

Career Management
and Counseling

In career
counseling, The MBTI is useful for self-concept development so important to
career maturity (Zunker, 1994). The manuals
(Myers & McCaulley, 1985; Myers, McCaulley, Quenk, & Hammer,
1998/2003) discuss type and occupational choices, including tabular data of
correlations with a variety of other personality, opinion, attitude, and
interest scales. Specifically, the General Occupational Themes of the
Strong-Campbell Interest Inventory (SCII) are correlated with the MBTI; when
used together, the SCII points to specific careers of interest, and the MBTI
shows why those careers are of interest. Since the SCII corresponds with Holland’s personality types and work environments (Zunker), the many materials based on Holland’s
theory are accessible and can be used within the MBTI personality type
context. Extensive data regarding occupational choice and personality
type have been gathered over the years of MBTI usage, and statistics have been
compiled into lists of occupations and the types represented (Myers & McCaulley; Myers et al.). These are coded to
correlate with the Dictionary of Occupational
Titles (1991), thus making the vast amount of career-related information of the
U. S. Department of Labor relevant to personality types. Introduction to
Type and Careers (Hammer, 1993) is a booklet that guides the use of type for
setting goals, gathering information, making contacts, and making decisions in
the career exploration process. Hammer (1996a) states the MBTI is among
the three most widely used instruments in college career counseling settings,
along with the Strong Interest Inventory and Holland’s
Self-Directed Search. He identifies three levels of intervention using type:
the static level, which addresses the matching hypothesis; the dynamic level,
primarily used in career exploration and decision making; and the developmental
level, which applies knowledge of differential type development to the sixteen
different type paths for career development, useful in understanding issues of
midlife career transitions and long-term career development issues. He
discusses the large amount of career-related research generated by the MBTI in
the decade since publication of the second version of the manual accordingly.

Management and
Leadership

While Walck (1996), in reviewing research on use of the MBTI in
management and leadership, found attempts to predict behavior from type to
produce mixed results, 30 years of research support a few conclusions.
All four functions appear to have some impact on all steps in the decision
making process. Evidence does not support the idea that leadership style
is a function of type. While type does not appear to be able to predict
success in organizations, it may predict how people spend their time.
There is some evidence of an STJ “managerial culture” which all types in
management learn to value. Despite disappointing empirical results, for
which Walck faults difficulties in methodology of
research, she remains optimistic that new research paradigms will allow type to
have a significant impact on management and leadership practice.

Teams

Teams have become an
integral part of most organizational environments. The underlying
assumption is that the diversity of resources inherent in a team of individuals
will enhance the solving of organizational problems (Hammer & Huszczo, 1986). The publication of team building
materials and training programs by Hirsh (e.g., 1985) has provided tools for
using type that have made the MBTI a popular tool with organizational
development consultants. In using the MBTI, it is assumed that understanding of
individual differences will enable teams to identify the skills and abilities
each team member brings to a task, and that this knowledge will help minimize
conflict by viewing potential sources of misunderstanding as simply natural
individual differences. Hammer & Huszczo,
in reviewing the literature, suggest that the very interesting research
involving complex dynamics and relationships might better be done by studying
patterns of meaning and directions of relationships than by mechanical
statistical significance testing.

Education, Learning
Styles, and Cognitive Styles

The MBTI has been
used extensively in education. The MBTI Manuals (Myers & McCaulley, 1985; Myers, McCaulley,
Quenk, & Hammer, 1998/2003) discuss implications
of type for different levels of student aptitude, initiative, interest, and
achievement. Type differences in learning, teaching, and administrative
styles are also discussed, with many helpful pointers in applying type
knowledge to teaching and administrative methods to maximize student
learning. People Types and Tiger Stripes (Lawrence,
1993) introduces teachers to type theory and its use in the classroom. In
an overview of the voluminous research on type and education in the last
decade, DiTiberio (1996) states that learner
characteristics consistently confirm predictions of type theory. Studies
seem to indicate that optimal teacher-learner interactions are more complicated
than matching like types, and that learning may
actually be better facilitated by similar but complementary types between
instructor and student. More research is needed in this area.
Considerable research has confirmed earlier findings reported in the 1985
manual. The MBTI also has been applied to current issues in education,
such as culture and gender, vocational education, nontraditional education, and
computer-assisted instruction (DiTiberio).

Multicultural
Applications

As the modern world
moves toward a more global society, interest in multicultural use of the MBTI
has exploded. Both Jung and Myers felt that psychological type is
universal. If so, the implications of promoting understanding between
cultures and increasing appreciation of diversity within a culture are
significant. Consulting Psychological Press listed 14 commercial
translations and 15 translations being tested as research instruments in 1996
(Kirby & Barger, 1996). One important problem in developing
translations is separation of underlying type patterns from culturally
influenced behaviors.
When it is used with appropriate explanation of psychological type, significant
success has been reported by practitioners using the MBTI in a wide variety of
cultures and cocultures, both in developing nations
and industrialized societies. Reliability and validity studies to date
indicate significant reliability when used with English-speaking populations or
those with a reasonable command of English, and that the MBTI does indicate
respondents’ Jungian type preferences in the cultures in which it is being
used. Research issues include the investigation of whole type multiculturally as well as individual preferences, and the
dynamics of interaction of individuals and their cultures. Though these
are difficult challenges, the rewards promise to be great (Kirby & Barger).

Health, Stress, and
Coping A “decade of sophisticated research” (Shelton, 1986,
p. 197) has produced conclusive evidence that personality factors, as well as
biological factors, play a significant role in the disease process. The MBTI is
an important tool in investigating health, stress, and coping variables, and in
using knowledge thus gained to tailor prevention and treatment programs to the person’s type. Shelton
reviews research using the MBTI to study physiological differences according to
type, to relate the incidence of several disease processes and type, to relate
stress and coping to type, and to study the outcome of a stress reduction
treatment program. He presents an interesting discussion of explanations
of results hypothesizing both relationships of type to susceptibility to
stress-related disease, and reaction to stress as a function of type. The
third edition of the MBTI Manual (1998/2003) includes a section on the
implications of research on health, stress, and coping with stress in its
chapter on the use of type in counseling and psychotherapy. This appears
to be fertile ground for ongoing research.

Summary

In reliability
and validity, the MBTI appears to be at least comparable to other personality
measures currently available. It is strongly supported by research, and
is continually being reviewed and revised for psychometric improvement, while
preserving the integrity of the instrument and
its original purpose of operationalizingJung’s personality typology. Its expanding and
successful applications in a variety of settings suggest its versatility as an
assessment instrument. It is easy to use and relatively
inexpensive. (The online Consulting Psychologists Press catalog lists
Form M item booklets at $98.75 for 25 reusable booklets; hand-scorable answer sheets at $26 per 25; Form M self-scorable at $90.75 per 10; individual report forms at $26
per 25, and scoring templates for $73 each set. Prepaid booklets and
answer sheets for mail-in scoring with a computer-generated profile report is
listed at $109.50 per 10. Online testing and reporting are also
options.). The information reported is geared toward client
benefit, whether for issues of immediate interest, or for deeper study to
enhance personal growth and enrich interpersonal relationships in all areas of
life. Its positive view of the value of all types, each with its own
gifts and strengths, and each person a unique and dynamic blend of these
characteristics, is particularly attractive to normal populations. It is,
as well, a strong validation of individual personhood. As such, it is of
particular value for those individuals whose types are underrepresented in the
general population of our culture and who, having been required to live and
work against their natural tendencies, have suffered physically or
psychically. For these people, just to learn that their
differences are not pathological, but simply a matter of type, brings healing
and motivation to grow. Wherever there are human interactions, the
MBTI can be valuable in promoting, according to Isabel Myers’ philosophy,
“constructive use of differences” (Best of Bulletin, 1998, p.6)
References